There are infinite number of games in the town (universe)

2022-06-12

There are infinite number of games in the town (universe)

What is the meaning of life?

To whom? 

The question about meaning of life comes up for an individual. But does such an individual (separate from the rest of existence) exist in reality? Or is it just a concept (of separation)?

If being a separate person is just a concept and not a concrete reality, what meaning can be there for a conceptual entity?

OK, if it is just a concept, to whom does the concept arise? It doesn't arise to any person. It is just an impersonal arising as any other natural process like wind, fire, star, tree etc.

OK, to whom does the impersonal concept arise? No one. Does wind, fire etc arise to any one?

There is no external source or entity (to reality / nature / universe...) to give an answer.

One is not separate from reality / nature / universe. Each of us is a co-creator of reality / nature / universe. Obviously, the co-creation part as us is limited in space-time; still it contributes to the whole.

So, it is up to oneself to create or not-create (which is part of the co-creation) meaning.

Good news is (there is no bad news, only good news) that there is no one meaning.

There are infinite number of games in the town (universe). So, create and play your game. No game is loftier or lowly. Take the sense of separation sincerely (because that is the overarching game of nature / existence) and be a true individual and not be an imitation or fake.

Even not bothering about any meaning of life is in a way meaningful!

anpuLLa Thol Anna

Thanks for sharing. Is it may be like waves of consciousness in a vicious cycle like water -> vapor -> cloud -> rain -> water (same may be applies for wind, fire etc).  Float with sense of separation -> Search for meaning -> reach (realize) truth -> dissolve into ocean of consciousness -> Float with sense of separation?

anpuLLa

Logesh

anpuLLa Logesh,

 

Yes, you got it.

 

The oneness can only be spoken about / realised / felt when there is sense-of-separation. The sense-of-separation can be there only against oneness. One cannot be without the other. 

 

Wave (sense-of-separation) is possible only in the ocean (of oneness). Only a wave (apparent separate entity) can realise the ocean (of oneness). 

 

The wave / sense-of-separation is the doing of the ocean / oneness.

 

Ramana’s question ‘Who am I’ can be in many flavours as ‘who is doing religion’ ‘who is doing science’ ‘who is doing politics’ etc but the angle of approach / investigation (i.e. not looking through any previous conceptual lens) will make the difference (perspective shift).

 

Once this is understood the next step is to enquire who is aware of the sense-of-separation (wave) and oneness (ocean). 

 

Further investigation (self-enquiry) can make us understand that it is the same (whatever it is; whatever name we want to give) oneness / awareness / consciousness / pure being / existence / nature / universe / God… which is conceptualising itself as oneness, the separate entity etc. 

 

Put like this it sounds very mystical but it is the simple fact that everything / knowing is conceptual. 

 

Understanding that is not external to that. Any understanding in thought / word has to use concepts like - oneness, awareness etc. 

 

Looking for an external proof indicates the perspective has not shifted. This doesn’t mean there is no proof. There are no assumptions and beliefs. As said above this can only be expressed in terms of concepts in thoughts and words. The hope is they will be treated as pointers. 

 

In fact, all other proofs are external. This is the only proof which is totally (without relying on anything else) internal (ex. I exist). That is why this is called self-evident (for naked eyes).

 

Even though in the above para, there is mention of ‘external proofs’, all such external proofs are ultimately accepted (by each individual) only internally.

 

I accept that earth is going round the sun using such external proofs. But where do I evaluate such external proofs? How do I determine that such external proofs are valid and acceptable? If I keep on digging and digging (asking the same ‘how’ question about each layer of logic, mathematics, experiments etc), I will at the bottom come to the end of ‘because it makes sense to me’.  Finally, ‘I am’ is the proof of everything.

 

If someone says ‘telepathy makes sense to me, it is proven’,  yes, it is proven to that person but not for others. Each of us will accept only when it makes sense to us whether it is telepathy or big-bang or theory of evolution etc. 

 

Our acceptance condition of ‘making sense to me’ may be buried under layers and layers of logic, mathematics, experimental data etc but it is the foundation.

 

This is applicable even to hard-nosed believer-of-objective-world scientists. 

 

When a number of people see something as ‘making-sense-to-me’, that becomes a shared view / opinion / truth / fact for those people. This is applicable to every domain of knowledge.

 

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

• Max Planck

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/max_planck_101765

 

Nobody can make another person see the light but they can help by pointing out. 

 

We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.

• Galileo Galilei

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/galileo_galilei_381318

 

Of course, one can force others to accept (pretend to accept) using status, power, violence etc. and that happens a lot in the world. As a social animal, I may have to follow (pretend to accept) the ‘proof’ / ‘rule’ / ‘expectation’... of others in day-to-day life. For example, the current political and economic system doesn't make sense to me but I have to live (survive) within it even to try to change it.

 

Finally, ‘I am’ is the proof of everything (see the difference - the sentence is not ‘I am the proof of everything’) .

 

The question is the ‘answer’. The seeker is the ‘sought’. 

 

“Thinker is the thought” - Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

“Understanding is everything” - Ramana

 

Some more thoughts...

 

History (in a broader sense) may repeat but your current form (uniqueness) is not going to repeat. So, you are a dust in one sense, also the best (meaning one-off version) in another sense. Each of us is an one-off special edition. There was nothing in the universe as each of us before and will be ever after. 

 

Seeing through the 'reality' (we can use 'illusion' also) of the sense of separation simultaneously evaporates one's sense of importance / self-centred-obsessions and creates a harmless version of the same ego with sincerity and authenticity to do whatever one is convinced of. 

 

There is no obsession to be right (in the eyes and opinions of others as well as in one's own) but there is integrity to walk the talk (as practical) with humility to accept mistakes and correct, endlessly. 

 

There is firmness (about one's perspective) as well as openness (able to see via others perspectives). 

 

There is no RIGHT or WRONG (absolute sense) but there is right and wrong (relative sense). 

 

One is released from conceptual prison but one is comfortable with all the concepts (doesn't mean agreeing / adapting / supporting all concepts etc). 

 

Usually the trials of life pushes one to such realisation and transformation irrespective of seeing through the 'reality' of the sense-of-separation. 

 

But broad mindedness, openness, empathy, ability-to-put-oneself-in-others-shoes, relinquishing unhealthy versions of all sorts of isms... all are nothing but the movement towards erosion of self-centeredness and conceptual-prison-walls. 

 

It doesn't matter whether this is named as spiritualism or socialism or self-actualisation or anything else. The transformation is important for oneself, family and society.

 

The need for this transformation has been repeatedly (in the history of mankind) raised by (in the form of) seers and propagated in many forms (religion, myths, literature, art...).

 

In the modern world the same need is being fulfilled in multiple ways (for example, environmental consciousness). The best way to counter the unhealthy ways (based on institutional religion, spiritual gurus, consumerism, technological redemptivism etc) is to promote the healthy secular way.

 

“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

― Pablo Picasso

A quote by Pablo Picasso

 

There is a hard objective rational side. That is one side. But the other side (art of seeing / realising the truth by indirect means) is as much important. In fact, each enables and enriches each other and they cannot exist alone. We can give different names we like to each side. Labels are not important but the identification and integration of both.

 

There is no need to see that even the 'hard objective rational side' is finally subjective. What we call 'objective' is shared-subjective. It is independent of individual subjects but it is not independent of subjectivity as such. This is similar to each of us is made of different cells but none of us is not-made of cells.

 

If the atom and molecules in me (body) are of universe, then the thoughts in me (mind) are also of universe, unless one wants to bring in some supernatural source.

 

Irrespective of whether one thinks mind / consciousness is primary or as co-primary (along with matter) or epiphenomenon of matter, mind / consciousness / thoughts are of this universe. They cannot have any other source.

 

We can say the properties of water are epiphenomenon of large numbers of water molecules coming together. That doesn't make the properties of matter somehow to hang beyond and above water molecules. Those properties are expressions of water molecules. 

 

The same applies to mind / consciousness / thoughts. There is no body and mind. It is a convenient conceptual split for not actual reality. Once we accept this, then we can see how any process (disease, happiness etc) cannot be treated as due to the body or due to mind alone.

 

Even the placebo and nocebo effects indicate that there is no real separation between body and mind.

So, there is no 'hard problem' of consciousness. The 'hard problem' of consciousness is the result of the wrong and unsupported belief that matter and consciousness are separate.

 

Then under the conceptual split perspective, if we say body affects mind and mind affects body - it is just a way of putting the single process.

 

This doesn't automatically support telepathy, telekinesis and all kinds of paranormal but will encourage us to consider them as normal (they are experiences) and proper investigation with openness as we are investigating split-personality-disorder. 

 

The experiences are real as experiences. Instead of approaching and rejecting them (based on materialist framework) as mere-brain-states (even if so), approaching them as what / how / why they are created will be productive and enrich empirical science.

 

Once science was uncomfortable accepting anything that cannot be perceived with our senses like fields. Even now we are not able to perceive fields with our senses but we believe based on an acceptable class of evidence. We have expanded our evidence set.

 

When we investigate rare (abnormal) cases, we discover new things and that expands our knowledge. For this, good examples are Vilayanur Ramachandran's investigation, experiments and findings.

 

The truth pointed at by an art is not of the same type of empirically proven truths but still they are truths playing equally if not more important roles in our lives.

 

That openness will be lacking if we think mind is an irrelevant epiphenomenon of matter. Placebo and nocebo effects (empirically verified many times) indicate what we believe (epiphenomenon) affects the body (matter).

 

Richard Dawkins used to say, 'yes, we need to be open but we should not be so open that our brains fall out'. 

 

Joking apart, that is what is precisely needed, an empty mind, a mind aware of its conceptual-prison, a mind that is able to shake-off its current concepts and look afresh / nakedly (no assumptions, no beliefs - reasonable or unreasonable) but that is a big ask.

 

anpuLLa,

Thol